墨尔本的城市宜居性
Urban Liveability in Melbourne
习希德
澳大利亚墨尔本大学建筑建造与规划学院 高级讲师，博士
李 翔
澳大利亚墨尔本大学建筑建造与规划学院 博士研究生
吴 昊
澳大利亚墨尔本大学建筑建造与规划学院 高级讲师，博士
摘要: 以堪称全球宜居城市典范的墨尔本为例，从城市宜居性概念、评价维度及评价因素出发，探讨宜居性评价的指向性问题；接着从城市历史角度剖析墨尔本宜居性的形成与特质。研究发现，宜居性的概念及评价体系的建立容易产生指向性不明或矛盾，缺乏从当地居民个人视角的历史维度的宜居性考察。通过从历史角度对墨尔本宜居性形成进行分析，认为对于城市基础设施及公共交通质量的提高、以人为本规划设计手段的运用和坚持、稳定的制度体系、良好的区位、重视当地社区参与、注重文化多样性和包容性，以及绿色健康城市形象的打造是墨尔本高度宜居性的形成基础。综合考虑社会空间非均质性与城市历史演变等因素，为城市宜居性评价提供了新的研究视角。
Abstract: Melbourne is recognised amongst the world’s most liveable cities, yet it is recognised that evaluation of urban liveability is complex. This paper adopts a historic perspective to the concept of urban liveability and evaluation in Melbourne. It takes into account social-spatial inequity and the role of urban history in shaping collective perception of urban liveability. The paper argues divergent emphases on urban liveability and the lack of a ‘local’ perspectives. It recognises urban development policy and image-building global city marketing are key forces behind urban liveability in Melbourne. Basic values such as health, safety, and dignity remain central to heterogeneous social distribution, history and social evolution of urban liveability.
关键词：宜居性评价、宜居城市、墨尔本、历史因素
Keyword: Evaluation，Urban liveability，Melbourne ，Historic attribute
中图分类号：TU981
文献标识码: A
[1]WHO. Annual report of the Director-General for 1961: programme aspects[R].1961.
[2]HOLDEN M , SCERRI A. More than this: liveable Melbourne meets liveable Vancouver[J]. Cities, 2013(31): 444-453.
[3]RUTH M, FRANKLIN R. Liveability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications[J]. Applied Geography, 2014(49): 18-23.
[4]HAAN F, FERGUSON B, ADAMOWICZ R, et al. The needs of society: a new understanding of transitions, sustainability and liveability[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Changes, 2014(85): 121-132.
[5]ZANELLA A, CAMANHO A, DIAS T. The assessment of cities’ liveability integrating human wellbeing and environmental impact[J]. Annual of Operation Research, 2015(226): 695-726.
[6]GOUGH Z. Reconciling liveability and sustainability: conceptual and practical implications for planning[J]. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 2015(35): 145-160.
[7]BUCHANAN C, KOCH A, WEDDERBURN M, et al. Paved with gold: the real value of good street design[M]. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
[8]Environmental Protection Agency. Partnership for sustainable communities: a year of progress for American communities[R]. 2010.
[9]吴良镛.关于人居环境学[J]. 城市发展研究，1996，3（1）：1-5.
WU Liangyong. On habitat environmental science[J]. Urban Studies, 1966, 3(1): 1-5.
[10]李丽萍，郭宝华. 关于宜居城市的理论探讨[J]. 城市发展研究，2006，13（2）：76-80.
LI Liping, GUO Baohua. A study on the theory of the liveable city[J]. Urban Studies, 2006, 13(2): 76-80.
[11]张文忠.宜居城市的内涵及评价指标体系探讨[J]. 城市规划学刊，2007，169（3）：30-34.
ZHANG Wenzhong. Study on intrinsic meanings of the liveable city and the evaluation system of liveable city[J]. Urban Planning Forum , 169(3): 30-34.
[12]高晓路.人居环境评价在城市规划政策研究中的工具性作用[J]. 地理科学进展，2010，29（1）：52-58.
GAO Xiaolu. The environmental evolution of human settlement as a tool for urban planning and urban policy studies[J]. Progress in Geography, 2010, 29(1): 52-58.
[13]张文忠.中国宜居城市建设的理论研究及实践思考[J]. 国际城市规划，2016，29（1）：52-58.
ZHANG Wenzhong. Theoretical research of the liveable city construction and its practice reflection in China[J]. Urban Planning International, 2016, 31(5): 1-6.
[14]Economist Intelligence Unit. A summary of the liveability ranking and overview[R]. 2016.
[15]SOUTHWORTH M. Measuring the liveable city[J]. Built Environment, 2003, 29(4): 343-354.
[16]COSTELLO L. From prisons to penthouses: the changing images of high-rise living in Melbourne[J]. Housing Studies, 2005(20): 49-62.
[17]NEWTON P. Liveable and sustainable? Socio-technical challenges for twenty-first-century cities[J]. Journal of Urban Technology, 2012(19): 81-102.
[18]WEGENER M. The future of mobility in cities: challenges for urban modelling[J]. Transport Policy, 2013(29): 275-282.
[19]MILLER H, WITLOX F, TRIBBY C. Developing context-sensitive liveability indicators for transportation planning: a measurement framework[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2013(26): 51-64.
[20]YIGITCANLAR T, O’CONNOR K, WESTERMAN C. The making of knowledge cities: Melbourne’s knowledge-based urban development experience[J]. Cities, 2008(25): 63-72.
[21]MARSHALL W. An evaluation of liveability in creating transit-enriched communities for improved regional benefits[J]. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 2013(7): 54-68.
[22]BADLAND H, WHITZMAN C, LOWE M, et al. Urban liveability: emerging lessons from Australia for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health[J]. Social Science & Medicine, 2014(111): 64-73.
[23]Domain. Melbourne’s most liveable suburbs ranked[R]. 2015.
[24]MCCREA R, WALTERS P. Impacts of urban consolidation on urban liveability: comparing an inner and outer suburb in Brisbane, Australia[J]. Housing, Theory and Society, 2012, 29(2): 190-206.
[25]RADOVIC D. Mn’M Workbook 1: Intensities in ten cities[M]. Tokyo: Flick Studio,2013.
[26]ADAMS R. From industrial cities to Eco-Urbanity: the Melbourne case study[J].Planning News, 2008, 34(1):6-11.
[27]O’HANLON S. The events city: sport, culture, and the transformation of inner Melbourne, 1977-2006[J]. Urban History Review, 2009, 37(2): 30-40.
[28]FINCHER R, SHAW K. The unintended segregation of transnational students in central Melbourne[J]. Environmental and Planning A, 2009(41): 1884-1902.
